Realitycrash: Wild boars? Hunting-rifles. No one ever claimed it should be illegal to hunt.

How many wild pigs do you think you can kill at one time? Three? Four? Because on some of my jobs I have had to kill upwards of 50 and at one point I was asked to kill100. Would you like to try and kill 50 pigs, 3 at a time? What's more, pigs are not stupid. If you keep attacking them they will go to ground and you will have a hell of a time finding them. Plus, the more you engage them the greater the likelihood of one of them attacking you. The last time a friend of mine was attacked its tusks cut through his shin guards, his jeans, and cut halfway through his boot.

So tell me, would you like to volunteer?

Who will protect your friend? The police.Not enough police-officers? Hire more, pay them higher wages.No room for that in economics? Make cut-backs somewhere else. Maybe the army-budget, maybe state-spending, I don't know. But in most western nations, the police protects a states citizens. Citizens don't necessarily need to protect themselves. This issue has a solution that does not need to be 'guns'.

Really? Do you have any concept how large the US is? What's more you are asking for more police officers in an area that rarely needs police officers. More often than not they will just be sitting around on empty highways, or patrolling peaceful streets. After you get past El Paso there are long stretches of virtually nothing (hell, it is like that even before you get to El Paso). It takes 30 minutes in order to get to my friend's land from town.

You want to know where my friend lives? Look at the dark green area in the southern part of the state, it is around there-

How many police officers do you want to just sit there in the off chance something does happen? There is a strong possibility of something happening to my friend if he is not able to defend himself. No group of thugs is going to attack his house while he is armed (and given the area he lives in there is a strong possibility of him being armed). If his only protection is a police officer half an hour away then they will not give a shit. It is better for the drug runners if the land is unoccupied. Him being there is an inconvenience and your precious police officers cannot be everywhere.

So, he does not want to die, he cannot move, and the drug runners like that clear open country. It is an impasse. The government cannot defend him and if he does not defend himself then he is screwed.

Realitycrash:Alright, for this argument only, I'll bite: Wild boars? Hunting-rifles. No one ever claimed it should be illegal to hunt. Sweden, where I live, have an absurdly tight gun-law, but proportionately to population has a very high gun-concentration. Why? Hunting-rifles allowed for hunting (with proper licenses, etc). And yes, if you use them for 'self-defense', you will most likely (legal gray-area) go to jail.

Who will protect your friend? The police.Not enough police-officers? Hire more, pay them higher wages.No room for that in economics? Make cut-backs somewhere else. Maybe the army-budget, maybe state-spending, I don't know. But in most western nations, the police protects a states citizens. Citizens don't necessarily need to protect themselves. This issue has a solution that does not need to be 'guns'.

Let's see, ended up in the hospital, or dead and having to replace thousands of dollars in stolen property.

Or spend an hour tops at the local Police Department explaining why there's a dead body just inside my kicked in door or broken window.

I think I'll be taking my chances with my Mossberg than wait for the police to show up,who are also under no legal obligation to even come at all.

As for outdated, if I do not kill those wild pigs then who is going to? You? The government? Or what about my friend who lives on the Arizona/Mexico border? Who is going to protect him? The issues that made the 2nd Amendment necessary to begin with are still present.

Alright, for this argument only, I'll bite: Wild boars? Hunting-rifles. No one ever claimed it should be illegal to hunt. Sweden, where I live, have an absurdly tight gun-law, but proportionately to population has a very high gun-concentration. Why? Hunting-rifles allowed for hunting (with proper licenses, etc). And yes, if you use them for 'self-defense', you will most likely (legal gray-area) go to jail.

Who will protect your friend? The police.Not enough police-officers? Hire more, pay them higher wages.No room for that in economics? Make cut-backs somewhere else. Maybe the army-budget, maybe state-spending, I don't know. But in most western nations, the police protects a states citizens. Citizens don't necessarily need to protect themselves. This issue has a solution that does not need to be 'guns'.

...do you have any idea HOW MUCH MONEY THAT WILL COST?

it will make our two wars look pitiful by comparison. You would have to cut every entitlement program completely, at least. Probably would have to significantly cut the military on top of that too.

It is simply not a feasible option. And that doesnt even address the fact that criminals can easily gain access to illegal guns through various means.

The only way disarming the citizens could (and i stress the word could) work is if:

1. cartels are destroyed (not feasible)2. gangs are eliminated (not feasible)3. vastly cut down illegal goods coming into the country (even if the Cartels were eliminated, still not feasible)4. vastly increase police force (not feasible for MANY reasons)

good luck for figuring out how to get a police response time of less than 2 minutes (which is STILL too long) in the white/yellow areas of the US.

My state, New York, has some of the strictest gun control in the country. It is still extremely dangerous here, i cant even walk the street at night. Not only is a general gun ban not feasible for many economic, social, and political reasons, but there isnt a single shred of proof INSIDE THE US that it will work or improves the situation.

Realitycrash: Wild boars? Hunting-rifles. No one ever claimed it should be illegal to hunt.

How many wild pigs do you think you can kill at one time? Three? Four? Because on some of my jobs I have had to kill upwards of 50 and at one point I was asked to kill100. Would you like to try and kill 50 pigs, 3 at a time? What's more, pigs are not stupid. If you keep attacking them they will go to ground and you will have a hell of a time finding them. Plus, the more you engage them the greater the likelihood of one of them attacking you. The last time a friend of mine was attacked its tusks cut through his shin guards, his jeans, and cut halfway through his boot.

So tell me, would you like to volunteer?

Who will protect your friend? The police.Not enough police-officers? Hire more, pay them higher wages.No room for that in economics? Make cut-backs somewhere else. Maybe the army-budget, maybe state-spending, I don't know. But in most western nations, the police protects a states citizens. Citizens don't necessarily need to protect themselves. This issue has a solution that does not need to be 'guns'.

Really? Do you have any concept how large the US is? What's more you are asking for more police officers in an area that rarely needs police officers. More often than not they will just be sitting around on empty highways, or patrolling peaceful streets. After you get past El Paso there are long stretches of virtually nothing (hell, it is like that even before you get to El Paso). It takes 30 minutes in order to get to my friend's land from town.

You want to know where my friend lives? Look at the dark green area in the southern part of the state, it is around there-

How many police officers do you want to just sit there in the off chance something does happen? There is a strong possibility of something happening to my friend if he is not able to defend himself. No group of thugs is going to attack his house while he is armed (and given the area he lives in there is a strong possibility of him being armed). If his only protection is a police officer half an hour away then they will not give a shit. It is better for the drug runners if the land is unoccupied. Him being there is an inconvenience and your precious police officers cannot be everywhere.

So, he does not want to die, he cannot move, and the drug runners like that clear open country. It is an impasse. The government cannot defend him and if he does not defend himself then he is screwed.

Then issue special weapons, just for killing those pigs, if that is the problem. This really isn't a Second Amendment issue, it's a 'proper tools for the proper job' issue. One can still allow specialized firearms for special occupations and situations without going all Second Amendment Guns-for-self-defense-for-all. That was my entire point.

And yes, I know the US is huge. My point was, once again, that there are other solutions than just saying 'Nah, fuck that, we need to be able to protect ourselves'. Economically viable solutions right now? No. But just going 'Look, we need the Second Amendment' isn't automatically true for all times.

Alright, for this argument only, I'll bite: Wild boars? Hunting-rifles. No one ever claimed it should be illegal to hunt. Sweden, where I live, have an absurdly tight gun-law, but proportionately to population has a very high gun-concentration. Why? Hunting-rifles allowed for hunting (with proper licenses, etc). And yes, if you use them for 'self-defense', you will most likely (legal gray-area) go to jail.

Who will protect your friend? The police.Not enough police-officers? Hire more, pay them higher wages.No room for that in economics? Make cut-backs somewhere else. Maybe the army-budget, maybe state-spending, I don't know. But in most western nations, the police protects a states citizens. Citizens don't necessarily need to protect themselves. This issue has a solution that does not need to be 'guns'.

No on can afford more cops, and even when they do the cops do NOTHING.

California did a cop surge, and all that happened was nothing but bankruptcy.

Gangs still did whatever they wanted.

Cops were still spread thin.

Response time was just as bad in the areas that needed it most.

Whenever anyone does a "cop surge" it doesn't always go to everyone. Sometimes the cops just go to the richer areas Which never needed more cops in the first place. Nothing changed.

Cops who do nothing get fired. I think you don't fully understand how a police-department works if you think cops do 'nothing'.Also, all these things you say are practical issues, not issues concerning the Second Amendment. You asked 'who will protect my friend?'I answered: 'Police Officers, it's their job'.You said: 'They are poor at their job and cost a lot of money'To which I reply: Then get better cops and pay for them by making cut-backs.

I'm not claiming I have a way to explain how to afford paying for cops, or making them sufficiently effective in a large enough area to hamper crime. What I am saying is that 'we need the second amendment because people need to protect themselves' isn't an end-all solution. There ARE other solutions, and they seem to work fine for other nations. Right now no-one might be willing to pay for more police, rather than allowing people to defend themselves with their own weapons, but that doesn't mean that this is the only possible solution.There will always be crime, so the 'reason for the second amendment' will always exist, if you think that protecting yourself from criminals is said reason. I'm saying that given sufficient police-protection, said reason becomes more trivial, even if there always will be a possibility of violent crime or threats.

No, they are not always fired. This is California we are talking about, the state that wishes it was Europe and is willing to drive it self into bankruptcy to follow bad ideas. The prime example why not everything from Europe works everywhere else.

The cop surge only went to rich areas, and the actually bad areas didn't improve. Even if they did cover the ghettos, the prisons are revolving doors that make criminals worse and more connected. The cops solved nothing. Prisons stopped being for rehabilitation and became gang recruitment centers. Because we can't afford to pay for good prisons and private prisons want repeat offenders for more money. The FBI has gone off about this for years but no one does anything.

So for much of America, "more cops" doesn't solve much. The same way "less guns" solves nothing. Its an over simplified answer that doesn't work in the practical world. There are much more factors at play than just "cops."

Keep in mind, cops are not legally required to respond to your call. When cops actually do go to the rougher areas, they are swamped and are incredibly busy. Something that "more well paid cops" can't fix. We need to bring crime down, not try to catch up the crime snow ball effect. That's what California did wrong. Yet bringing crime down would require a lot of reforms that no one wants to do because its expensive and take a decade if not more of restructuring.

Europe doesn't have to deal with the problems the US does.

America isn't the same as the UK just like Mexico isn't France. America is stuck in its own special corner it created for itself through decades of horrid policies dating all the way back to the days of Prohibition.

America made its bed, and stuff other countries do does not always work.

Realitycrash:Then issue special weapons, just for killing those pigs, if that is the problem. This really isn't a Second Amendment issue, it's a 'proper tools for the proper job' issue. One can still allow specialized firearms for special occupations and situations without going all Second Amendment Guns-for-self-defense-for-all. That was my entire point.

Yes this is a Second Amendment issue. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We need those firearms to hunt pigs. You want to restrict them for no good reason.

And yes, I know the US is huge. My point was, once again, that there are other solutions than just saying 'Nah, fuck that, we need to be able to protect ourselves'. Economically viable solutions right now? No. But just going 'Look, we need the Second Amendment' isn't automatically true for all times.

Yes it is always true. Unless it was deleted from the constitution the last time I looked. Laws do not disappear when you decide that they are not needed.

Also, your solutions suck. Since your solutions suck we will keep our guns to protect ourselves. Don't like it? Then come up with less sucky ideas. Sorry, but this is our life and not a game. We implement your idea and we are screwed. If you want to attack the Second Amendment then you better come up with something that actually addresses the problem.

Realitycrash:Then issue special weapons, just for killing those pigs, if that is the problem. This really isn't a Second Amendment issue, it's a 'proper tools for the proper job' issue. One can still allow specialized firearms for special occupations and situations without going all Second Amendment Guns-for-self-defense-for-all. That was my entire point.

Yes this is a Second Amendment issue. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We need those firearms to hunt pigs. You want to restrict them for no good reason.

And yes, I know the US is huge. My point was, once again, that there are other solutions than just saying 'Nah, fuck that, we need to be able to protect ourselves'. Economically viable solutions right now? No. But just going 'Look, we need the Second Amendment' isn't automatically true for all times.

Yes it is always true. Unless it was deleted from the constitution the last time I looked. Laws do not disappear when you decide that they are not needed.

Also, your solutions suck. Since your solutions suck we will keep our guns to protect ourselves. Don't like it? Then come up with less sucky ideas. Sorry, but this is our life and not a game. We implement your idea and we are screwed. If you want to attack the Second Amendment then you better come up with something that actually addresses the problem.

Sigh. It's called an AMENDMENT for a reason. That means we can CHANGE IT, thus not making it automatically true for all times.But you are missing my point. My point isn't to get more police-officers specifically, but that for the arguments that was listed (Pigs and safety in a very sparsely populated area), the second amendment isn't necessary. All that is necessary is a few laws that says 'Okey, guns are forbidden, mkey? Except when they aren't. And when they aren't, it's when people need them to kill big fucking pigs, or when they live a gazilion miles from the nearest police and the area isn't suitably safe to live in".Second Amendment speaks for EVERYONE, these laws will NOT. That's the difference.

Here's a real-life example: In Norway, guns are heavily prohibited. But in the Svalbard (an island that belongs to Norway) It is mandated by law that you are armed with rifles if you travel outside of towns, as people tend to get eaten by polar-bears otherwise.See my point? We can make any number of excuses for any number of situations where it can be alright to own a gun. The Second Amendment is too strong, as it makes it a legal right for everyone to own a weapon (if they meet the requirements, etc).

So, given the two arguments stated, the Second Amendment is NOT necessary.

Edit: As for Svalbard, I think it might only be in certain places or during certain times of the year. Point still stand, though; One can make any kind of special cases and exceptions to any kind of law.

Believe it or not these things are actually not all that uncommon. They only become news when people die. There are quite a few news stories about would be shooters being confronted by administrators and teachers that broke policy and left guns in their cars and such. No one hears about these because death sells and things basically ending "Everything went better then expected" don't sell quite so well.

In the states, law enforcement officers are not required to protect me. Not in the slightest bit. There have been numerous court cases on this matter and they've come back with one general conclusion: cops have to keep order in society. They have no obligations to individuals. Nada. Zip. Zilch

Now, I live in a generally low crime rate area. It's well populated, and we spend quite a bit of money on law enforcement. I've never had to call the cops. But a neighbor of mine did. You know what the response time was? 5 minutes, give or take. And this was for a home invasion. Similar instance happened a block or two down. Response time? 6 and a half minutes.

Realitycrash:Sigh. It's called an AMENDMENT for a reason. That means we can CHANGE IT, thus not making it automatically true for all times.

Let me make this abundantly clear. UNTIL you change the law you DO NOT get the right to ignore it. If you do not like the law then fucking change it. Until then it is the supreme law of the land and it IS automatically true.

But you are missing my point. My point isn't to get more police-officers specifically, but that for the arguments that was listed (Pigs and safety in a very sparsely populated area), the second amendment isn't necessary.

Really? You have yet to provide an adequate way to kill pigs or for us to protect ourselves.

All that is necessary is a few laws that says 'Okey, guns are forbidden, mkey? Except when they aren't. And when they aren't, it's when people need them to kill big fucking pigs, or when they live a gazilion miles from the nearest police and the area isn't suitably safe to live in".Second Amendment speaks for EVERYONE, these laws will NOT. That's the difference.

So in other words you are not much of an egalitarian. You want to strip the rights of some so that YOU can feel safe. Why not allow everybody the same rights?

See my point? We can make any number of excuses for any number of situations where it can be alright to own a gun. The Second Amendment is too strong, as it makes it a legal right for everyone to own a weapon (if they meet the requirements, etc).

So only the people who have drug runners going through their property have the right of self defense. The poor inner-city woman who is afraid to walk home at night can go fuck herself. I have the right to own an AR-10 because I hunt with it. But a man who wants to shoot competitions with it can go fuck himself. In fact, let 99% of all Americans just go fuck themselves because YOU think they do not need a gun. Why not allow them to decide?

It always amuses me how afraid you anti-gunners are of the people. Only tyrants need worry about tyrant killers.

So, given the two arguments stated, the Second Amendment is NOT necessary.

Yes it is. Sorry, we an egalitarian nation (more or less) and we prefer not to give people special privileges (we prefer our presidents in jeans, and our representatives in town halls).

But I think Ben Shapiro got it right when he completely shut down Piers Morgan. Saves you a lot of reading and me a lot of typing.

That video is *really* annoying. Piers doesn't give a rat's anus about poor, brown kids shot in cities with handguns, the only thing he cares about are the media-darling mass shootings (mostly of white people). Shapiro is right about that much. Shapiro's answer is, basically, it's the crazy people's fault! I want just one of these people who are all "nobody with a history of mental illness should own a gun" to please clarify precisely what they mean by "mental illness" and "history". If someone had a suicidal period 20 years ago, are they still disqualified to own a gun? If someone has an anxiety disorder which is controlled by medication, are they still barred from hunting? What about someone who did a stint in an inpatient facility because of PTSD from being molested as a kid? Can they shoot years down the line? Just precisely who is getting access to people's private medical records here, and who makes the determination as to which mental problems are severe enough to cost someone their second amendment rights?

I'm concerned about this rising trend toward school shootings, but I'm also concerned about the exclusive focus on mass shootings and the disinterest in other kinds of gun violence, and I'm extremely concerned about the stigmatization and further alienation of people with any kind of psychiatric issues. I also agree that media sensationalizing doesn't help at all, especially the focus on the mind of the shooter-- but on the other hand, if we weren't all excitedly clicking on those links, they wouldn't be there. Mass media is a business, if it sells, it airs.

Realitycrash:Sigh. It's called an AMENDMENT for a reason. That means we can CHANGE IT, thus not making it automatically true for all times.

Let me make this abundantly clear. UNTIL you change the law you DO NOT get the right to ignore it. If you do not like the law then fucking change it. Until then it is the supreme law of the land and it IS automatically true.

But you are missing my point. My point isn't to get more police-officers specifically, but that for the arguments that was listed (Pigs and safety in a very sparsely populated area), the second amendment isn't necessary.

Really? You have yet to provide an adequate way to kill pigs or for us to protect ourselves.

All that is necessary is a few laws that says 'Okey, guns are forbidden, mkey? Except when they aren't. And when they aren't, it's when people need them to kill big fucking pigs, or when they live a gazilion miles from the nearest police and the area isn't suitably safe to live in".Second Amendment speaks for EVERYONE, these laws will NOT. That's the difference.

So in other words you are not much of an egalitarian. You want to strip the rights of some so that YOU can feel safe. Why not allow everybody the same rights?

See my point? We can make any number of excuses for any number of situations where it can be alright to own a gun. The Second Amendment is too strong, as it makes it a legal right for everyone to own a weapon (if they meet the requirements, etc).

So only the people who have drug runners going through their property have the right of self defense. The poor inner-city woman who is afraid to walk home at night can go fuck herself. I have the right to own an AR-10 because I hunt with it. But a man who wants to shoot competitions with it can go fuck himself. In fact, let 99% of all Americans just go fuck themselves because YOU think they do not need a gun. Why not allow them to decide?

It always amuses me how afraid you anti-gunners are of the people. Only tyrants need worry about tyrant killers.

So, given the two arguments stated, the Second Amendment is NOT necessary.

Yes it is. Sorry, we an egalitarian nation (more or less) and we prefer not to give people special privileges (we prefer our presidents in jeans, and our representatives in town halls).

The arguments provided can be solved without the second amendment. I honestly don't care about the other Americans because that wasn't my point. The arguments were bad because they need not rely on the second amendment. As for the rest of the strawmen you are arguing, I don't care.

farson135:The Spanish fought against everybody. Thousands of Jews were saved by armed citizens in Belorussia.

Maybe you should take some history lessons. Eastern Europe had it's very own holocaust independant of the nazis, because they also hated the Jews well before the war.

You know how these people were able to kill Jews? Because they had firearms. If they hadn't been the NRA type gun owner, they'd have had nothing to threaten the local Jews with, and anyone in a region where it wasn't aided by the German army would've escaped.

Also you'll note most of the people you mention weren't the "I fear the niggers, so I sleep with a gun under my pillow" kind of gun owner who's very common in the US these days. They didn't believe in justified murder like their modern American counterparts. Actually I'm pretty sure you don't have the faintest clue about underclass living in those days. Grandfather was able to give me instructions on how to use knives against people without getting arrested or seriously injuring someone. Do you think that was because living as a worker in those days was so peacefull? No, if you went to the next village to see a girl, you had to fight your way in because you're an outsider. And twice that if you belonged to another denomination of Christianity.

farson135:And that is just in the 20th century. If you go further back to the 1830s and even before then armed civilians were the ones that brought democracy to Europe in the first place.

It's quite clear you don't know about military history then. Armies were in those times an ad hoc affair. You conscripted a bunch of guys, screamed at them untill they wouldn't break ranks even when fire upon, and taught them to operate their weapons. After Maurits of Nassau, you generally also taught them a little firing discipline.

Value of such soldiers against civilians who don't operate like a standing military unit: almost zero. Why do you think Paris was rebuilt with large lanes instead of small streets? Military units couldn't operate unless they had large clear firing lanes. A city with a different design from wide straight streets was impossible to subdue if it rose up, for armies in those times.

This is why the first light infantry in those days was such a smashing succes. Military units had evolved to be only effective against eachother. It's a dumb comparison to show that armed gunowners who pause murdering innocent people for a bit to fight a standing army, would be able to do anything about it.

Half an hour, +/- afew minutes. Hell, the only time I have even SEEN cops out here is when they come out here with a purpose (namely, it was one of my dads State Trooper buddies and he buzzed the house with his lights on doing 90mph because he knew where we lived). The cops dont patrol out here because its pointless. Crime is rare to non-existant, and about the only thing they would be doing is sitting in the trees watching for speeders. Of course, they also know that your average farmer is armed too the teeth with at the very least a shotgun and a rifle, so while they do hurry, they know they are most likely taking someone out in hand cuffs or a body bag. Hell, there was a town down the road just recently where a farmer had two guys try and rob his house while he was home. He called the police, just like hes supposed to, and when they got there, they found one guy injured but stable, and the other being held at gunpoint. And by Kansas law, the police will not be charging him.

Then how come spree killer Kim de Gelder only killed 3, while he practised for months and months and planned his attack carefully, whereas the Sandy Hook shooter didn't, and caused a huge massacre?

The evidence contradicts your claim.

BOOM headshot65:Hell, there was a town down the road just recently where a farmer had two guys try and rob his house while he was home. He called the police, just like hes supposed to, and when they got there, they found one guy injured but stable, and the other being held at gunpoint. And by Kansas law, the police will not be charging him.

Good example of how gun ownership causes more violence. If that farmer had been unarmed, nobody would've been injured and they'd have arrested the thieves and returned his stuff maybe five minutes later.

Blablahb:Uh, nope, they can't. The quickest method is choking someone, which takes 30 seconds each and is quite difficult to do on someone who's struggling I can tell you.

Wrong.

Disable your opponent, arm breaking, knee capping, etc. the head should be relativity easy to crush.

And boom, lights out.

Then how come spree killer Kim de Gelder only killed 3, while he practiced for months and months and planned his attack carefully, whereas the Sandy Hook shooter didn't, and caused a huge massacre?

He didn't plan enough apparently,hence the failure.

And Mr. Sandy Hook only did so well because he was more than likely familiar with the weapon system since it was his mothers, had probably a few years and a few thousand rounds of 5.56x45mm under his belt, and knew how to line up some damn post sights.

Good example of how gun ownership causes more violence. If that farmer had been unarmed, nobody would've been injured and they'd have arrested the thieves and returned his stuff maybe five minutes later.

Now people could've died.

How is one injured but stable, and two in custody WORSE than three dead?

Really, explain this.

Explain how one wounded, zero deaths is better than three plain dead. Go ahead.

Uh.... no. Breakings arms is quite difficult to do, and takes a lot of time even if you're using maximum leverage like an armbar. You pretty much can't break someone's skull unless you smash their head into a hard object at large speed, also something which is extremely difficult to do on someone who's resisting. We evolved from beings who spent a good part of the day whacking eachother over the head over who's boss, so we can take a fair bit of punishment you know.

Don't mean to talk down to you, but maybe you should first learn such techniques before using them as an argument in a discussion? It strikes me as illogical to bring them up if you're not aware of how they need to be executed and what sort of damage they do.

Merely the fact that people prefer firearms, and there's not a 'weekly school beating massacre' in countries with strict firearms laws should be ample proof that your claim in this case is wrong.

And Mr. Sandy Hook only did so well because he was more than likely familiar with the weapon system since it was his mothers, had probably a few years and a few thousand rounds of 5.56x45mm under his belt, and knew how to line up some damn post sights.

De Gelder practised for months like I said. But he lives in a country with a firearms ban, so he was restricted to knives. Knives are far less lethal than firearms, and he couldn't kill as much as he'd liked. Proof that the materials is what counts.

As for the rest, you yourself are now saying that having ammunition available helped him. So isn't this a bit of a moot point by now? Materials determine killing power. Training can only affect that a little. For certain, take the materials away, and spree killing stops.

Smagmuck_:How is one injured but stable, and two in custody WORSE than three dead?

I don't see why you bring this up. It's not a possible scenario in that case.

Blablahb:Breakings arms is quite difficult to do, and takes a lot of time even if you're using maximum leverage like an armbar.

I'm not talking about using MMA as a way to do it. If that clarifies.

You pretty much can't break someone's skull unless you smash their head into a hard object at large speed, also something which is extremely difficult to do on someone who's resisting.

So a five year old can put up stiff resistance to a line backer?

Don't mean to talk down to you, but maybe you should first learn such techniques before using them as an argument in a discussion? It strikes me as illogical to bring them up if you're not aware of how they need to be executed and what sort of damage they do.

I'm just going to be subtle and point out the extreme amount of irony here. Like, damn man, I could cut it with a knife.

Smagmuck_:As for the rest, you yourself are now saying that having ammunition available helped him.

Helped? Yes, it logical to assume to provided support. But it is NOT the sole reason why he was so successful. Practicing with a tool is training.

For certain, take the materials away, and spree killing stops.

Even you yourself have said this is not the case. You said they would lower, and in the US it wouldn't be by a lot because we are a violent culture.

I don't see why you bring this up. It's not a possible scenario in that case.

No, you said it was a case of bad gun ownership.

Three men broke into a farmers home with intent to cause thousands in property damages (IE stealing). The farmer put up resistance, plugged one non-fatally and probably would have dropped the other two if they decided robbery wasn't worth their lives.

How is what actually happened far worse than the extreme variable of three men dying?

Realitycrash:The arguments provided can be solved without the second amendment.

No they cannot. Unless you make a law that allows firearms to all people who believe themselves to be in danger, those who use firearms for hunting, and those who use firearms for competitions. In which case you might as well have the Second Amendment.

I honestly don't care about the other Americans because that wasn't my point.

YOU stated that some Americans should receive extra rights.

The arguments were bad because they need not rely on the second amendment.

You keep saying that but you have yet to prove it.

As for the rest of the strawmen you are arguing, I don't care.

What strawman? Are there any or are you just trying to cover your ass?

Eastern Europe had it's very own holocaust independant of the nazis, because they also hated the Jews well before the war.

Not independently and, as in Germany, that does not mean that citizens did not try and save Jews.

You know how these people were able to kill Jews? Because they had firearms.

So the government was able to kill Jews effectively because they had a monopoly on force. That sounds like an argument for the Second Amendment.

Also you'll note most of the people you mention weren't the "I fear the niggers, so I sleep with a gun under my pillow" kind of gun owner who's very common in the US these days.

A middle class white boy using the term nigger to a person whose people were called prairie/timber/etc niggers (in fact I have actually referred to as a prairie nigger before). And that middle class white boy is using that term to insult guns owners like myself and many of my friends.

Boy, if you do not cut this shit out you are going to be known on this forum as a racist on top of being known as fundamentalist.

Actually I'm pretty sure you don't have the faintest clue about underclass living in those days.

Yeah, a farmer's son who lived under the same roof as his Great-Grandfather and Great-Grandmother (who survived the Dustbowl, the Great Depression, WW1, several KKK resurgences, etc) has no concept of underclass life. But YOU know everything.

It's quite clear you don't know about military history then. Armies were in those times an ad hoc affair. You conscripted a bunch of guys, screamed at them untill they wouldn't break ranks even when fire upon, and taught them to operate their weapons. After Maurits of Nassau, you generally also taught them a little firing discipline.

You have absolutely no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Performing the complex maneuvers that it took to get a unit from column formation into battle formation took months of practice. And after the Napoleonic Reforms it got even more complicated. I suggest you try reading "The German Way of War". Learn something for once.

Value of such soldiers against civilians who don't operate like a standing military unit: almost zero.

Bullshit. Also, the Landwehr operated as a standard military unit (just with less practice).

This is why the first light infantry in those days was such a smashing succes.

Actually light infantry was only a success to the French at first. Latter on they developed harrying attacks on lines of communication, supply, and rear echelons. Before the French those units were notoriously prone to pillaging (even their own people) and desertion, which is why the early light infantry units all usually came from one people who could be watched closely.

Realitycrash:The arguments provided can be solved without the second amendment.

No they cannot. Unless you make a law that allows firearms to all people who believe themselves to be in danger, those who use firearms for hunting, and those who use firearms for competitions. In which case you might as well have the Second Amendment.

I honestly don't care about the other Americans because that wasn't my point.

YOU stated that some Americans should receive extra rights.

The arguments were bad because they need not rely on the second amendment.

You keep saying that but you have yet to prove it.

As for the rest of the strawmen you are arguing, I don't care.

What strawman? Are there any or are you just trying to cover your ass?

"It always amuses me how afraid you anti-gunners are of the people. Only tyrants need worry about tyrant killers" - That's a Strawman.

Anyway: You CAN make laws that allow a selected few to use firearms, because people in special situations and with special needs get special perks. You CAN make laws like this. If you think it is not very egalitarian, then fine, I'm 100% alright with not allowing everyone access to everything, if the consequences warrant it. For the arguments listed, about pigs and drug-runners, the Second Amendment is not necessary. Now, if you claim that 'Not allowing everyone to be able to defend themselves is not egalitarian, and that is wrong, and so we need the second amendment', that is a different kind of argument.See what I mean? For those two arguments, just those two listed, the Second Amendment is not necessary. These people can be protected without it. HOWEVER, such legislation might very well come off as not egalitarian, but that's a different point all-together. I did not argue what would be egalitarian, I argued that for those arguments posted, we need not accept the Second Amendment.

Now, since I genuinely hope you understand my point about the difference between the two arguments, and since I am tired of every thread turning into a gun-debate, I'm going to turn this into something else:Freedom is overrated. Better to deprive people of certain freedoms, if it turns out that it garners overall better consequences, than to let them run wild with their freedoms and in turn drag their community/country into ruin.Case in point: Prohibition of narcotics, special circumstances and places for sale of alcohol, certain taxes, and for some countries, gun-bans (I'm already aware that the last point isn't viable for the US, and I would never argue for it, but in other countries, I would).

Realitycrash:"It always amuses me how afraid you anti-gunners are of the people. Only tyrants need worry about tyrant killers" - That's a Strawman.

Is it? You do not want the majority of people to own firearms because of fear. How is that an inaccurate statement?

Anyway: You CAN make laws that allow a selected few to use firearms, because people in special situations and with special needs get special perks. You CAN make laws like this.

Can does not equal should. We can make a law that that requires the death penalty for all cases of drug abuse. That does not mean we should.

If you think it is not very egalitarian, then fine, I'm 100% alright with not allowing everyone access to everything, if the consequences warrant it.

And you have not proven any reason to bar guns from the majority.

For the arguments listed, about pigs and drug-runners, the Second Amendment is not necessary.

Yes it is. Unless you make a law that is equivalent to the Second Amendment in every way except not called the Second Amendment.

Pigs are spread throughout the majority of the Southern, Midwestern, and Western US (I am talking about high concentrations but they are pretty much everywhere). In other words, most of the country from the rural to the suburban has to deal with them from time to time. That is already a majority of the population.

Drug runners are pretty much the entire southern US.

In other words, about the only area you are talking about baring firearms is the Northeast, the far north, Hawaii, and the territories. Of course then you have to worry about wolves, bears, moose, etc (cross off the northern US). So all you have left are the various island territories and state in the US. Those areas already have a very low gun ownership rate. So your efforts are in vain because practically the entire country can claim protection from drug runners and wild pigs.

Now, if you claim that 'Not allowing everyone to be able to defend themselves is not egalitarian, and that is wrong, and so we need the second amendment', that is a different kind of argument.

No, it is the same argument. If you are trying to argue that I meant that only people who are threatened by drug runners have the right to self defense then THAT is a strawman argument. I provided a very clear cut example of the limits of the police force. Examples do not mean you get to ignore everything else.

These people can be protected without it.

No they can't. You have yet to provide an acceptable means for those people to be protected.

Freedom is overrated. Better to deprive people of certain freedoms, if it turns out that it garners overall better consequences, than to let them run wild with their freedoms and in turn drag their community/country into ruin.

Problem, you want to drag my community into ruin by depriving use of our constitutionally guaranteed liberties.

Of course I know about this kind of argument. Benevolent dictators and all. You want to strip us of rights that YOU think are unnecessary but you will only do it to help us. What we want is irrelevant.

Economic and social policies piss of people all the time. However it was his failing military campaigns which cost a lot of lives and brought almost nothing to proud of that ultimately made people sick of him.

And how can you claim the Polish defeated any oppressor when they couldn't defeat the Nazis nor the Soviets? They lost both fights. On top of that the Polish are still hated by quite a few Jews because they were extremely anti semitic. I'd say that the people there did more to kill them than to save them.µ

And while i'll admit that the use of the word "flesh" was kind of misplaced (i felt like i needed to use a word that was both original and appropriate to the context, in combat situations soldiers/militia men are considered a resource) all those little annoying rebels were merely a little pain in the ass. All the civilians who actively collaborated ensured the Nazis didn't have to mobilize too many troops. Heck in France there were much much more collaborators enforcing the Führer's law than actual Germans.

And yes the cost was lower. I don't think it was expensive to get a musket back than as it is now to get a B-2, M-1, Apache, etc. There is a lot of military equipment that is insanely expensive nowadays that no civilian could ever buy.

And i also find it funny that no militia loving person here even addressed the fact it were Civilian Militias which basically helped both the Nazis and Fascists to take over their country.

Even if we assume that militias could potentially fight off a dictator they could just as well get one to rise up.

Is there killer-pigs living in NYC? No? Then there are nuances. Are there sufficient police at certain places? Then there are nuances. I don't want to take away your guns, but I want to point out that saying 'My friend lives in a dangerous place near the Arizona border, and there are plenty of wild pigs where I live' can be solved without allowing everyone guns for self-defense. Those two arguments simply don't hold to warrant "We need the second amendment". Saying 'Everyone deserves a chance to be able to defend themselves' is a better argument for the Second Amendment.

Problem, you want to drag my community into ruin by depriving use of our constitutionally guaranteed liberties.

Of course I know about this kind of argument. Benevolent dictators and all. You want to strip us of rights that YOU think are unnecessary but you will only do it to help us. What we want is irrelevant.

Look, I really don't give a shit about the US. I just give a shit about improper arguments. This was my way of starting a new discussion about Freedom in general, not to attack your right to have guns (which I really, really don't give a shit about).

What I care about: Insufficient argumentation.What I don't care about: United states gun-politics.

generals3:Economic and social policies piss of people all the time. However it was his failing military campaigns which cost a lot of lives and brought almost nothing to proud of that ultimately made people sick of him.

It was still the people who overthrew him.

And how can you claim the Polish defeated any oppressor when they couldn't defeat the Nazis nor the Soviets? They lost both fights.

They defeated their oppressors in several battles. Asymmetrical warfare cannot be measured the same way as traditional combat.

On top of that the Polish are still hated by quite a few Jews because they were extremely anti semitic. I'd say that the people there did more to kill them than to save them.µ

Many Jews were saved by armed citizens. Collaboration is a different issue.

And while i'll admit that the use of the word "flesh" was kind of misplaced (i felt like i needed to use a word that was both original and appropriate to the context, in combat situations soldiers/militia men are considered a resource) all those little annoying rebels were merely a little pain in the ass.

And yes the cost was lower. I don't think it was expensive to get a musket back than as it is now to get a B-2, M-1, Apache, etc. There is a lot of military equipment that is insanely expensive nowadays that no civilian could ever buy.

Comparing a musket in those days to a modern tank is stupid. You should compare it to modern infantry armament. Now if you would like to compare a cavalryman to a tank then that is a fair comparison and the cavalryman probably wins out in terms of relative cost. In addition, you have not taken logistics into account (very expensive in those days), the cost of a single round of ammo was much higher in those days, manufacturing processes were such that everything from clothing to muskets was far more expensive, repair work was much more difficult, expensive and time consuming, communications were extremely problematic and that lead to a huge amount of waste, and on.

All of that was done under a tax and procurement system that can at best be described as primitive.

And i also find it funny that no militia loving person here even addressed the fact it were Civilian Militias which basically helped both the Nazis and Fascists to take over their country.

No they didn't. The Nazis took over using elections. The SS and SA were busy fighting communists.

BTW- it is never smart to try and copy Blablahb's arguments. He is almost always wrong.[

There are wild pigs around New York City and although you might want to majority to go fuck themselves it is still an issue.

Are there sufficient police at certain places?

Aside from the inside of a police state almost never. 10 minute response time is still 10 minutes.

but I want to point out that saying 'My friend lives in a dangerous place near the Arizona border, and there are plenty of wild pigs where I live' can be solved without allowing everyone guns for self-defense.

Apparently not since your only solution is to allow everybody who needs firearms to get them. And as I pointed out, those two arguments BY THEMSELVES cover the majority of the people in this country.

But how many Germans did they actually kill? A temporary heavy mobilization of troops doesn't mean much.

Comparing a musket in those days to a modern tank is stupid. You should compare it to modern infantry armament. Now if you would like to compare a cavalryman to a tank then that is a fair comparison and the cavalryman probably wins out in terms of relative cost. In addition, you have not taken logistics into account (very expensive in those days), the cost of a single round of ammo was much higher in those days, manufacturing processes were such that everything from clothing to muskets was far more expensive, repair work was much more difficult, expensive and time consuming, communications were extremely problematic and that lead to a huge amount of waste, and on.

But that was my point: military equipment evolved a lot. Whether they are comparable is irrelevant. The army have them and the civilians would need to compete with it. In the past standing armies had less "luxuries". Horses and artillery, that's it. (and the artillery back than was dodgy at best)

No they didn't. The Nazis took over using elections. The SS and SA were busy fighting communists.

The SA was busy fighting socialists, commies (political opponents) and also harass journalists that would make bad press. I don't think that was irrelevant. Forcing the opposition to shut up is a good way to skew election results. And the fact that as a Militia they were actively enforcing oppression shows already enough about the risks.

And Mussolini still used his Blackshirts for the March on Rome, which succeeded.

generals3:And who's gonna be more of a threat the soldier with a musket or the one with an M4 ? Obviously both factors are very important.

Exactly, which is why the Second Amendment is such a big issue. The people deserve the right to be on par with their government firepower wise because history has proven that democratic governments have shifted to totalitarian regimes when there is a large issue at hand.

It happened to Germany.It happened to Italy.It happened to Russia.

And it can happen to America just as easily as it did to those countries.

Do you believe, then, that citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons?

generals3:But how many Germans did they actually kill? A temporary heavy mobilization of troops doesn't mean much.

That is unknown. However, it was not a temporary mobilization. Read through Germany and the Second World War, book V (it is an expensive book so you should look for it at a library or some history resource center). That book details the German military presence in every country.

But that was my point: military equipment evolved a lot. Whether they are comparable is irrelevant.

Yes it is relevant. Your argument was that it was cheaper to supply a standard army group in say the 1700s than a unit of comparable size today. That is wrong.

The army have them and the civilians would need to compete with it.

And? You do not need a tank to defeat a tank. A tank can be defeated by cutting supply lines.

In the past standing armies had less "luxuries". Horses and artillery, that's it. (and the artillery back than was dodgy at best)

I have no idea what you mean by "luxuries". If you are referring to combined arms then you are completely wrong. Inner-communication was problematic but combined arms were still common.

The SA was busy fighting socialists, commies (political opponents) and also harass journalists that would make bad press. I don't think that was irrelevant. Forcing the opposition to shut up is a good way to skew election results.

Can you prove that they skewed election results? No? Hitler and his lot were popular in many parts of Germany.

And the fact that as a Militia they were actively enforcing oppression shows already enough about the risks.

First of all, the SS and the SA cannot be really described as a militia. Look up the definition for militia.

Second of all, the oppression was against the people they were fighting.

Third, the SS and SA mostly used clubs and knives in the beginning. Guns only came when they became a part of the government.

As for the risks, maybe y'all should stop making everything so goddamn black and white. I would prefer a system where the people can have their own government. If you force everybody into one hole then some people are not going to be happy. If you want to avoid the tyranny of the majority then perhaps you should be less absolutist.

generals3:But how many Germans did they actually kill? A temporary heavy mobilization of troops doesn't mean much.

That is unknown. However, it was not a temporary mobilization. Read through Germany and the Second World War, book V (it is an expensive book so you should look for it at a library or some history resource center). That book details the German military presence in every country.

But that was my point: military equipment evolved a lot. Whether they are comparable is irrelevant.

Yes it is relevant. Your argument was that it was cheaper to supply a standard army group in say the 1700s than a unit of comparable size today. That is wrong.

The army have them and the civilians would need to compete with it.

And? You do not need a tank to defeat a tank. A tank can be defeated by cutting supply lines.

In the past standing armies had less "luxuries". Horses and artillery, that's it. (and the artillery back than was dodgy at best)

I have no idea what you mean by "luxuries". If you are referring to combined arms then you are completely wrong. Inner-communication was problematic but combined arms were still common.

The SA was busy fighting socialists, commies (political opponents) and also harass journalists that would make bad press. I don't think that was irrelevant. Forcing the opposition to shut up is a good way to skew election results.

Can you prove that they skewed election results? No? Hitler and his lot were popular in many parts of Germany.

And the fact that as a Militia they were actively enforcing oppression shows already enough about the risks.

First of all, the SS and the SA cannot be really described as a militia. Look up the definition for militia.

Second of all, the oppression was against the people they were fighting.

Third, the SS and SA mostly used clubs and knives in the beginning. Guns only came when they became a part of the government.

As for the risks, maybe y'all should stop making everything so goddamn black and white. I would prefer a system where the people can have their own government. If you force everybody into one hole then some people are not going to be happy. If you want to avoid the tyranny of the majority then perhaps you should be less absolutist.

Just thought I'd interject a bit.

First, the contributions of the Partisans in Eastern Europe were massive. Whether it was in Poland, The Soviet Union, or anywhere else where the Germans basically thought everyone was untermensch. This is most apparent in the destruction of supply lines and the harrying of German forces. Nowhere was this more prominent then in...wait for...YUGO-MOTHAFUCKIN-SLAVIA. They are considered by most to be the only country to self liberate in World War 2. However if memory serves they did get a lot of supplies from the Allies. Though having arms of any kind is always a good seed for a militia.

Secondly, by luxuries I believe he is basically referring to things the military typically would have and civilians would not. So I think he might be right in a way. With the exception of Artillery back in the day it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility for civilians to drum up horses and guns to use. However supplying this would be such a pain in the ass due to things like lack of clear supplies and varying calibers of the weapons. So take that as you may.

Lastly, my readings of the war lend me to believe that the SA actually were not an influence much at all outside the borders of the Reich. They were also largely neutered after the Night of Long Knives when the SS became paramount. Because of this the SS did have a very large role outside Germany as they were the main ones in charge of rounding up Jews and others the Nazis labeled as "undesirable". That all being said the SA did start out as a sort of militia but they were mainly just muscle that roughed up Jews and started fights a Communists rallies. They caused quite a bit of mayhem but as the Beer Hall Rebellion shows, they never amounted to all that much. The SS as I understand it could have been considered a militia in the early years but they were never to prominent until after the Nazi Party came to power and they became a major government para-military group.

As for the risks, maybe y'all should stop making everything so goddamn black and white. I would prefer a system where the people can have their own government. If you force everybody into one hole then some people are not going to be happy. If you want to avoid the tyranny of the majority then perhaps you should be less absolutist.

What do you mean black and white? I wasn't the one who initially brought up Germany and Italy, they were brought up as an argument pro gun. I just used History to show these two countries were fine examples to why arming civilians doesn't necessarily help against Tyranny. Civilians have fought for and against dictators arming them thus involves the risk of arming people who will actively help dictators gain or remain in power. If anything all i have been doing is refute the absolute argument that arming civilians = good thing against dictators.

Shock and Awe:However if memory serves they did get a lot of supplies from the Allies. Though having arms of any kind is always a good seed for a militia.

It depends on the country. Getting arms to the French resistance is not that hard. Getting it to the Poles on the other hand. Mostly the partisans in the East stole from the Nazis. The French could expect allied drops. Some supplies did make it that far east. Most did not

Lastly, my readings of the war lend me to believe that the SA actually were not an influence much at all outside the borders of the Reich.

They were in Austria prior to its annexation. However, as you said, the SA was effectively done after the Night of the Long Knives.

SS did have a very large role outside Germany as they were the main ones in charge of rounding up Jews and others the Nazis labeled as "undesirable".

But most of the work was done by various German units. Such as you can read the book "Ordinary Men" with is an account from the German Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the part that unit played in the holocaust.

That all being said the SA did start out as a sort of militia but they were mainly just muscle that roughed up Jews and started fights a Communists rallies.

It is questionable to call the SS a militia. You would not call the MS-13 or the Bloods a militia. The SS and SA were just gangs. The SS later gained a place in the government but that does not change its roots.

generals3:Civilians have fought for and against dictators arming them thus involves the risk of arming people who will actively help dictators gain or remain in power.

Actually by building a system where the majority can oppress the minority you make it so that dictators remain in power. One man's dictator is another man's savior (which is why they gain power to begin with).

If anything all i have been doing is refute the absolute argument that arming civilians = good thing against dictators.

Actually you have not refuted it at all. Dictators are always afraid of an armed populous. That is why Hitler disarmed such a huge portion of the German population. He took the throne using votes, he kept it by maintaining a monopoly on force.

BTW- "arming civilians = good thing against dictators" is not an absolutist argument. Good is relative.

Three men broke into a farmers home with intent to cause thousands in property damages (IE stealing). The farmer put up resistance, plugged one non-fatally and probably would have dropped the other two if they decided robbery wasn't worth their lives.

How is what actually happened far worse than the extreme variable of three men dying?

*getting back from work* Just wanted to point out that it was actually 2 guys who tried to rob that farmer. The news said that they tried to get in his house, and while they were getting through the door, he grabbed a gun (they never said what kind, but I would assume shotgun or handgun), and called the cops. By this time, they had broken through the door, and he proceeded to shot one of them and injure him (again, it never said where he shot him). Upon seeing this, the second guy surrendered and was held at gunpoint until the cops showed up.

Although I do agree, it is far better that they were carried out in handcuffs/on a strecher rather than in bodybags.